curl --request GET \
--url https://api.vaquill.ai/api/v1/in/acts/{act_id}/status \
--header 'Authorization: Bearer <token>'import requests
url = "https://api.vaquill.ai/api/v1/in/acts/{act_id}/status"
headers = {"Authorization": "Bearer <token>"}
response = requests.get(url, headers=headers)
print(response.text)const options = {method: 'GET', headers: {Authorization: 'Bearer <token>'}};
fetch('https://api.vaquill.ai/api/v1/in/acts/{act_id}/status', options)
.then(res => res.json())
.then(res => console.log(res))
.catch(err => console.error(err));package main
import (
"fmt"
"net/http"
"io"
)
func main() {
url := "https://api.vaquill.ai/api/v1/in/acts/{act_id}/status"
req, _ := http.NewRequest("GET", url, nil)
req.Header.Add("Authorization", "Bearer <token>")
res, _ := http.DefaultClient.Do(req)
defer res.Body.Close()
body, _ := io.ReadAll(res.Body)
fmt.Println(string(body))
}{
"actId": "IND_state_20326",
"title": "The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.",
"citation": {
"citation": "The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.",
"citationShort": "Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002."
},
"goodLawStatus": "good_law",
"goodLawReason": "The publisher records this act as in force and no repeal is on the record. We have not independently verified it.",
"publisherStatus": "in_force",
"servedStatus": "served",
"isSubordinate": false,
"enactmentDate": "9-Mar-2005",
"lastAmendedYear": 2019,
"subordinateCount": 0,
"provenance": {
"sourceUrl": "https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/568111",
"textUrl": "https://acts-india.vaquill.ai/IND_state_20326/act.normalized.txt",
"pdfUrl": "https://acts-india.vaquill.ai/IND_state_20326/act.pdf"
},
"meta": {
"processingTimeMs": 361.8,
"creditsConsumed": 1
}
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}Is this act still law, and who says so
Everything we know about an act’s standing, kept in three separate vocabularies that are deliberately never collapsed into one verdict.
Cost: 1 credit.
publisherStatusisact_statusexactly as India Code records it. Their word.servedStatusis ours: whether this API answers for the act, or has retired it as withdrawn by the publisher or as a duplicate of one we kept.repealClaimis the publisher’s repeal record WITH its source, and with the caveat that we do not verify whether the repealing instrument was itself brought into force.
That last distinction is not pedantry. India Code lists the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as repealed by Act 37 of 2020, the Industrial Relations Code, which has never been commenced. Serving that as flatly “repealed” would be wrong, so this endpoint does not.
A retired act answers here with servedStatus: retired and the reason, rather
than 404ing, because “we deliberately withdrew this” is a more useful answer
than “no such thing”.
curl --request GET \
--url https://api.vaquill.ai/api/v1/in/acts/{act_id}/status \
--header 'Authorization: Bearer <token>'import requests
url = "https://api.vaquill.ai/api/v1/in/acts/{act_id}/status"
headers = {"Authorization": "Bearer <token>"}
response = requests.get(url, headers=headers)
print(response.text)const options = {method: 'GET', headers: {Authorization: 'Bearer <token>'}};
fetch('https://api.vaquill.ai/api/v1/in/acts/{act_id}/status', options)
.then(res => res.json())
.then(res => console.log(res))
.catch(err => console.error(err));package main
import (
"fmt"
"net/http"
"io"
)
func main() {
url := "https://api.vaquill.ai/api/v1/in/acts/{act_id}/status"
req, _ := http.NewRequest("GET", url, nil)
req.Header.Add("Authorization", "Bearer <token>")
res, _ := http.DefaultClient.Do(req)
defer res.Body.Close()
body, _ := io.ReadAll(res.Body)
fmt.Println(string(body))
}{
"actId": "IND_state_20326",
"title": "The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.",
"citation": {
"citation": "The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.",
"citationShort": "Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002."
},
"goodLawStatus": "good_law",
"goodLawReason": "The publisher records this act as in force and no repeal is on the record. We have not independently verified it.",
"publisherStatus": "in_force",
"servedStatus": "served",
"isSubordinate": false,
"enactmentDate": "9-Mar-2005",
"lastAmendedYear": 2019,
"subordinateCount": 0,
"provenance": {
"sourceUrl": "https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/568111",
"textUrl": "https://acts-india.vaquill.ai/IND_state_20326/act.normalized.txt",
"pdfUrl": "https://acts-india.vaquill.ai/IND_state_20326/act.pdf"
},
"meta": {
"processingTimeMs": 361.8,
"creditsConsumed": 1
}
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}{
"detail": "Insufficient API credits."
}Authorizations
API key issued from the developer dashboard. Pass as Authorization: Bearer vq_key_...
Path Parameters
1 - 200^[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+$"IND_state_20326"
Response
Successful Response
How to cite the thing this response is about.
Present on 99.90% of served acts. Where the publisher's own title carries a
defect, so does the citation: 10.4% of titles end in a period, which reads
as ... Act., s. 3, and 4.7% carry no year at all. Both are recorded
defects rather than reasons to withhold the field.
Show child attributes
Show child attributes
served or retired. OUR word about whether this API answers for it.
Show child attributes
Show child attributes
Show child attributes
Show child attributes
Our DERIVED verdict: good_law, not_good_law or unknown. Conservative by construction -- an unverified repeal claim maps to unknown, NEVER to not_good_law, because we do not check whether a repealing instrument was brought into force and at least one repeal on this record involves an Act that never commenced. One field to filter on; the three raw fields below remain if you want to judge it yourself.
"good_law"
Why the verdict above is what it is. Always present.
act_status exactly as the publisher records it. Their word, not our verdict.
Acts this one repeals, as the publisher names them. The inverse of repealClaim, and subject to the same caveat: it is their record, and we do not verify commencement.
A later consolidation that replaced this version, where one is recorded.
Subordinate instruments the publisher records under this act.
The publisher's claim about repeal, with our caveat attached.
Never flattened into a verdict. India Code lists the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as repealed by Act 37 of 2020, the Industrial Relations Code, which has never been brought into force. Serving that as flatly "repealed" would be wrong.
Show child attributes
Show child attributes
Show child attributes
Show child attributes
Was this page helpful?

